_HcAgenda Item No:Hc.
City Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: January 7, 2020
Submitted by: Nkenga Payne
Submitting Department: City Clerk
Item Type: Minutes
Agenda Section:
Subject:
12.12.19 minutes
Suggested Action:
Attachments:
12.12.19 minutes.pdf
1
CITY COMMISSION MINUTES
December 12, 2019
1
City of South Miami 1
Regular City Commission Minutes 2
December 12, 2019 3
4
The City Commission met in regular session on Thursday, December 12, 2019, beginning 5
at 7:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL. 6
7 8
A) SILENCE OR TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES
9 10
B) ADD-ON ITEM(S)
11 12
C) ROLL CALL
13
The following members of the City Commission were present: Mayor Philip Stoddard, Vice 14
Mayor Walter Harris, Commissioner Josh Liebman, Commissioner Bob Welsh and Commissioner 15
Luis Gil. 16
17
Also, in attendance were: Steven Alexander, City Manager, Thomas Pepe, City Attorney 18
and Nkenga A. Payne, City Clerk. 19
20 21
D) MOMENT OF SILENCE
22
Dr. Anna Price delivered the invocation. 23
24 25
E) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
26
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. 27
28 29
F) LOBBYIST(S) ADDRESSING THE CITY COMMISSION TONIGHT MUST HAVE BEEN
REGISTERED WITH THE CITY CLERK
30 31
G) PRESENTATIONS
32 33
H) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
34 35
I) CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
36
(report attached) 37
38 39
2
CITY COMMISSION MINUTES
December 12, 2019
2
J) CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
1 2
K) PUBLIC REMARKS
3 4
L) BOARDS AND COMMITTEES, APPOINTMENTS, ETC.
5 6
N) CONSENT AGENDA
7 8
1.) A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase three (3) Getac V110
Laptop Computers from PCN Strategies Inc. 3/5 (City Manager)
9
Moved by Mayor Stoddard, seconded by Commissioner Gil, the motion to approve 10
Resolution No. 167-19-15439 authorizing the City Manager to purchase three (3) Getac V110 11
Laptop Computers from PCN Strategies Inc passed by a 5 - 0 vote: 12
13
Yea: Mayor Stoddard
Vice Mayor Harris
Commissioner Liebman
Commissioner Welsh
Commissioner Gil
Nay: None
14 15
O) RESOLUTION(S)
16 17
2.) A Resolution deferring the second reading of the proposed amendments to the
Future Land Use Map of the City of South Miami’s Comprehensive Plan and the
Official Zoning Map concerning the Miami Dade County property identified by
folio numbers 09-4025-063-0010 and 09-4025-063-0020. 3/5 (City Manager-
Planning Dept.)
18
Moved by Mayor Stoddard, seconded by Commissioner Welsh, the motion to approve 19
Resolution No. 168-19-15440 deferring the second reading of the proposed amendments to the 20
Future Land Use Map of the City of South Miami’s Comprehensive Plan and the Official Zoning 21
Map concerning the Miami Dade County property identified by folio numbers 09 -4025-063-0010 22
and 09-4025-063-0020 passed by a 5 - 0 vote: 23
24
Yea: Mayor Stoddard
Vice Mayor Harris
Commissioner Liebman
Commissioner Welsh
3
CITY COMMISSION MINUTES
December 12, 2019
3
Commissioner Gil
Nay: None
1 2
M) COMMISSION REPORTS, DISCUSSION & REMARKS
3 4
Ma.) Finances of the SMCRA
5
Mr. Alexander gave an presentation of the proposed South Miami Community 6
Redevelopment Agency (SMCRA) extension and expansion (presentation attached). 7
8
After the presentation, the City Commission discussed and had a question and answer 9
session with Mr. Alexander, City Manager, Shari Kamali, Deputy City Manager and Alfredo 10
Riverol, CFO on the finances of the SMCRA and how it will affect the City's finances. 11
12
The following individuals were allowed to speak on the matter: Dr. Anna Price, Dick Ward, 13
Lee Jacobs, Levy Kelly, Lee Emerson Smith, Pam Lahiff and James Dundorf. 14
15 16
P) RESOLUTION(S) PUBLIC HEARING(S)
17 18
Q) ORDINANCE(S) SECOND READING(S) PUBLIC HEARING(S)
19 20
R) ORDINANCE(S) FIRST READING(S)
21 22
S) ADJOURNMENT
23
There being no further business to come before this Body, the meeting was adjourned at 24
9:26 p.m. 25
26
Attest:
_________________________
Nkenga A. Payne
City Clerk
Approved:
_________________________
Philip K. Stoddard
Mayor
27
4
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission
FROM: Steven Alexander
DATE: December 12, 2019
SUBJECT: Managers Report
Commission Welsh asked staff to determine the impact of the proposed
CRA extension and expansion with an increase in the TIF from 50% to 75%
on the City budget. This led to a very long and complicated series of
computations which are summarized below and which is the subject of
a presentation later in tonights meeting.
The current proposal for extending the CRA is to expand the boundary
to include the downtown shopping area and to increase the
percentage of revenues generated from 50% to 75% {Tax increment
financing (TIF)}. This increase will also mean that the County and the
City will contribute more revenues to the CRA than they are currently
contributing.
Using the projections generated by the Economist hired by the CRA,
Phil Gonot from PMG Associates, Inc. for advice on this issue, based
on the increase in TIF and the expanded boundary, in the first-year
the SMCRA would generate approximately $2,383,494, including the
County’s contribution. Based on this estimated first year revenue, the
following table represents the estimated maximum borrowing for
different years using solely the SMCRA as the borrower:
Term
Estimated
Loan or Bond
Amount ($M)
Estimated Project
Fund Capacity
($M) – After Debt
Expenses and
Minimal Financial
Requirements
5
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
M E M O R A N D U M
10-Years $13.2 $11.4
20-Years $21.6 $19.6
30-Years $25.9 $23.8
Several caviats are important here. The CRA extended term is
currently planned for 20 years so an extension of that period may be
necessary. The County will need to approve any Bond issuance prior
to the CRA persuing this option. The County will also need to
approve any bank loan issuance prior to the CRA pursuing this
option.
Remember that in this scenario of an increased TIF and an expanded
boundary, that the City loses approximately $109 million over 30 -
years. Therefore, although a 30 year bond would generate an
estimated $23.8 million to be spent in the CRA on projects, the City
budget will loose an estimated $109 million.
COUNTY SURCHARGE
The County has indicated that it intends to assert its claim to a 25
percent recapture of its funding component to the CRA to support
the Transportation Infrastructure Improvement District. The SMART TIID
(Transportation Infrastructure Improvement District) corridor extends ½
mile in each direction from the Metrorail right of way and has been
authorized by the County Commission. CRAs that existed at the time
the SMART TIID was created were exempted from being required to
contribute to the SMART TIID. The County has negotiated for new
CRAs or expanded CRAs is a payment back to the County for this
purpose. For instance, the Miami Gardens CRA will contribute 25% of
the County’s payment to the CRA back to the County, and that
funding will be set aside for the SMART Plan. THIS INFORMATION WAS
ONLY RECEIVED BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON DECEMBER 10 AND
THEREFORE, DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CALCULATIONS HAS NOT
BEEN INCORPORATED IN OUR FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS. THE RESULT OF
THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT IS THAT THE CRA WILL ACTUALLY HAVE LESS
REVENUE EACH YEAR THAN OUR PROJECTIONS SHOW.
6
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
M E M O R A N D U M
Keep in mind, with a required annual debt payment of approximately
$1.6 Million, this would use approximately 67% of the CRA’s estimated
revenues beginning with the financing loan or bond period, hence
severely hindering the ability of the CRA to fund any staff, operations
or programs. We have attached a estimate of staff costs for an initial
year based on recommendations by Mr. Fancher.
It is important to note, should the SMCRA wish to bo rrow for greater
than a 10 – 15 year term, it would likely necessitate a traditional bond
issue. Most bank lenders typically do not lend beyond 10-15 years.
Seeking a bank loan for a term greater than a 15-year term would
significantly narrow the number of banks willing to lend, and there is
no certainty that any lender would provide an extended term for this
particular loan term.
The estimates in the table above anticipate a minimum Debt Service
Coverage Ratio of 1.5 of whatever amount is financed. The estimates
also assume that the CRA will have to fund a Debt Service Reserve
Fund equal to one-year of debt payments held in reserve, in addition
to the estimated 2% closing costs. In addition, debt service coverage
ratios would be an important part of a credit rating evaluation. The
Estimated Project Fund Capacity ($M) column reflects the estimated
amount available for the construction of Improvement Projects.
CITY GUARANTEE OPTION
If the City would be willing to guarantee the SMCRA’s financing, and
pledge City revenues, the SMCRA could potentially borrow more
funds by reducing the need for excess debt service coverage on the
TIF revenue. For example, the SMCRA with annual revenue amount of
approximately $2.38 million, for a 20-year bond term would generate
a $33 million bonding capacity.
7
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
M E M O R A N D U M
With the same annual revenue amount of approximately $2.38 million,
but over a 30-year bond term , the bonding capacity would increase
to approximately $40 million.
It is important to note under this scenario that the City would be
required to make up any shortfall in TIF revenue to make debt
payments should the TIF revenue not be sufficient during the term of
the debt.
This would result in the City receiving a reduction in its own bonding
capacity for other un-related projects, and the City would need to
ensure it would be in compliance with its existing anti -dilution
covenants on outstanding debt after the issuance, which may
prevent the City from being able to back an amount as large as $43
million, resulting in a lower dollar amount being produced from a City-
backed financing option.
8
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
M E M O R A N D U M
ACCOUNT CLASSIFICATION CRA
REGULAR SALARIES – Director $140,
Deputy $120, Admin $40 300,000
FICA 22,500
DEFERRED COMPENSATION 21,000
INSURANCE 22,000
Operating Expenditures 30,000
WORKERS COMP 445
AUTO ALLOWANCE 5,000
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 400,945
9
South Miami
Community Redevelopment Agency
(SMCRA)
Extension & Expansion
Evaluation
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Presentation
10
Current Situation
SMCRA
50 % Tax Incremental Flnanclng
(TIF) Produclng $177,206,865
Taxable Value to SMCRA
Clty Contrlbutes $748,039
annually.
County Contrlbutes $811,782
annually.
Total CRA Revenue $1,559,821
annually.
City of South Miami
Annual $177,206,865 Taxable
Value gOlng to the SMCRA
Annual $748,039 Loss to the
Clty (Goes to the SMCRA)
2
1998 is the base year for Funding the SMCRA which Expires May 2020.
11
How SMCRA Financing Works
Florida law (Chapter 163, Part III), local governments are able to
designate areas as Community Redevelopment Areas when certain
conditions exist.
Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) are a common government
tool for redevelopment in Florida with the goal of revitalizing areas
designated as slum and blight.
~ They operate on a budget generated by the increase in property
taxes within the areas, using Tax Increment Financing (TIF).
Miami-Dade County contributes their respective share of the Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) generated from CRA district.
3
12
What is being proposed by
the current SMCRA, which
Sunsets on May 2020?
Requesting to extend the SMCRA
for an additional 20 to 3D-years.
Increasing the current trust fund
specific proportion of the tax
increment value from 50% to
75%.
Increasing the geographical area
of the SMCRA
13
14
Capital Projects within the SMCRA
Pedestrian Bridge
Downtown Park
th 57 Avenue Improvements
Sunset Drive Improvements
Parking Garage Acquisition
58 th Ave & 70 th St Traffic Operation Improvements
Downtown Tree Planting and Streetscape Projects
South Miami Gardens (Public Housing)*
TOTAL PROJECT COST
* Project Needs to be Added to the List
8,000,000
10,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
13,000,000
1,000,000
1,750,000
2,000,000
38,750,000
6
15
No Extension of the Extension & Ex pans ion of Extens ion & Expansion
SMCR<\ th e SMCRA at 75% of the SMCRA at 50%
(Revenue to the City) (Loss to the Cit\') Jl.oss to the City)
2019 $76 1,990 20 19 $1,142 ,984 20 19 76 1,990
2020 $798 ,355 2020 S I ,215 ,849 2020 8 10,566
202 1 $836,175 2021 $1,291,628 202 1 86 1,085
2022 $99 1,607 2022 $1,544 ,588 2022 1,029,726
2023 S I,101 ,657 2023 $1,775 ,4 17 2023 1,183 ,6 12
2024 $1,151 ,609 2024 $1,899 ,3 79 2024 1,2 66 ,253
2025 $1,203 ,559 2025 $1 975 ,668 2025 1,3 17,11 2
2026 S I ,257 ,587 2026 S2 ,081 ,840 2026 1,387,893
2027 $1,313 ,776 2027 $2 ,192 ,258 2027 1,46 1,506
2028 $1,372,213 2028 $2,307 ,094 2028 1,538,063
2029 $1,432,987 2029 $2 ,426,523 2029 1,6 17,682
2030 $1,496,192 2030 $2 ,550,729 2030 1,700,486
203 1 $1 ,56 1,925 203 1 52 ,679 ,9 04 203 1 1,786,602
2032 $1,630 ,288 2032 $2 ,8 14,245 2032 1,876,163
2033 SI ,70 1,385 2033 52 ,953 ,960 2033 1,969,307
2034 5 1,775,326 2034 $3 ,099 ,2 64 2034 2,066,176
2035 5 1,852,224 2035 $3 ,250,380 2035 2,166 ,920
2036 S I ,93?, 199 2036 $3 ,407,540 2036 2,27 1,693
2037 S2 ,015,373 2037 $3 ,570,987 2037 2,380,658
?038 $2,10 1,873 2038 S3,740,972 2038 2,493,98 1
2039 $2,19 1,834 2039 53 ,917,756 2039 2,611 ,837
2040 S2 ,285,393 2040 $4 ,10 1,6 11 2040 2,734 ,408
204 1 $2,382,694 204 1 $4 ,2 92,82 1 204 1 2,86 1,88 1
2042 $2,483 ,887 2042 $4 ,49 1,679 2042 2,994 ,453
?043 $2 ,589,129 2043 $4,698 ,49 1 2043 3,132,328
2044 S2 ,698,579 2044 $4,9 13,576 2044 3,275,718
?045 $2,812 ,408 2045 $5 ,137 ,265 2045 3,424,843
2046 $2 ,9 30,7 90 2046 55,369,90 I 2046 3,579,934
2047 $3 ,053 ,907 2047 $5 ,6 11,842 2047 3,74 1,228
2048 $3 ,18 1,949 2048 S5,863,46 1 2048 3,908,974
2049 $3,3 15,1 13
2050 $3 ,453,603
2049 $6 ,125 ,144
2050 $6,397,295
2049 4,083 ,430
2050 4,2 64,864 7
$6 1,667,583 $108 ,842,052 -72 ,)61,368
16
In Summary:
Current Proposal-Extension -$108,842,052 Over 30-years
8: Expansion of the SMCRA at
75% (Loss to the City)
Extension & Expansion of the -$72,561,368 Over 30-years
SMCRA at 50% (Loss to the
City)
Revenue to the City if the
SMCRA Sunsets May 2020
+$61,667,583 Over 30-years
B
17
Rules for Borrowing
A debt service reserve fund can be an important credit rating factor for a bond issue secured solely by tax increment
revenues, particularly where debt service coverage is lower
A debt service reserve fund is typically funded in an amount equal to 1-year of debt service payments (subject to
certain tax considerations)
The amount of the debt service reserve fund would typically be borrowed as part of the bond issuance, thereby
increasing the size of the borrowing and annual debt payments, but could be used to offset the final payment year
Interest earned on the reserve fund money would help to offset some of the associated interest cost to borrow for
the reserve fund
If available, the funding a reserve fund can also be satisfied through the purchase of a surety policy from a bond
insurer
A debt service reserve fund is often not required for municipal bank loans
In certain instances, particularly where debt service coverage is very narrow, some lenders may require a reserve
fund (which may be less than 1-year of debt payments)
Most banks typically will not lend beyond 15-years for a fixed rate loan, absent a put feature and/or interest rate
reset. The strength of the pledged source of repayment would be an important factor in banks' willingness to
make a longer term loan
A City or City-backed borrowing secured by a covenant to budget and appropriate from non-ad valorem revenues of ~he
City would not need a debt service reserve fund for either a bond issue or a bank loan
18
Rules for Borrowing (SUMMARY)
A City or City-backed borrowing properly secured would normally not need a debt
service reserve fund for a bond issue or a bank loan
A CRA would typically need debt service reserve fund for a bond issue and
possibly for a bank loan
Example
If the SMCRA wants to borrow $ 10 million and the annual payment is
$650,000 a year over 3D-years, the CRA may need to deposit $650,000 of the
proceeds into a debt service reserve fund. In order to obtain $ 10 million for
other purposes, the SMCRA would need to increase the borrowing size to
cover both the $ 1 Omillion and the debt service reserve deposit.
If the City wants to borrow $ 10 million and the annual payment is $650,000 a
year over 3D-years, the City would most likely NOT need to fund a debt 10
service reserve fund, hence making the borrowing less costly for the City.
19
With the Extension, With the Extension,
Expansion and 50% Expansion and 75%
TIF of the SMCRA, TIF of the SMCRA the
the B?rrowing . Borrowing Capa~ity
Capaclty to the
SMCRA over 30-to the SMCRA, over
ye~rs, is 30-years, is
Approximately
$ 15.9 million
Approximately
$23.8 million
Should the
SMCRA Sunset,
the City's
Borrowing
Capacity over
30-years is
Approximately
$43 million
11
20
Can the City recover otherwise
lost revenues based on the
proposal?
Rebate 25% $27 million
Leaves the City with a net
deficit of approx. $82 million
Veal"
2019
2020
2021
2 0 22
2 023
202 4
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
1\
I City
25% Rebate on
its Respective
Amount
285,746
303,962
322,907
386,147
443,854
474,845
493,917
520,460
548,065
576,774
606,631
637,682
669,976
703,561
738,490
774,816
812,595
851,885
892,747
935,243
979,439
1,025,403
1,073,205
1,122,920
1,174,623
1,228,394
1,284,316
1,342,475
1,402,960
1,465,865
1,531,286
1,599,324 12
27,210,513
21
Assuming a 25 % rebate to each,
the City and the County,
SMCRA's borrowing capacity will
be reduced because the SMCRA
annual revenues are reduced by
the rebate amounts.
Estimated Bonding Capacity on
$1,787,621 75% TIF Revenue:
$17.8 million
over 30-years
Year
2019
2020
202 1
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
City County Net SMCRA
25% Rebate on 25%Rebate on Revnue
its Re spective its Respective Amount, After
Amount Amount Re bates
285,746 3 10,128 1,787,621
303,962 329,898 1,901,581
322,907 350,459 2,020,099
386,14 7 4 19,095 2,415,727
44 3,854 48 1,726 2,776,742
4 74,845 5 1 5,361 2,9 70,61 8
493,917 536,06 1 3,089,933
520,460 564,868 3,255,985
548,065 594,829 3,428,680
576,774 625,987 3,60 8,282
606,631 658,392 3,795,068
637,682 692,093 3,989,326
669,976 727,142 4,19 1,354
703,561 763,593 4,401,463
738,490 801,502 4,619,977
774,816 840,928 4,847,23 1
812,595 881,930 5,083,575
851,885 924,573 5,329,373
892,74 7 968,921 5,585,003
935,243 1,015,043 5,850,858
979,439 1,063,010 6,127,347
1,025,403 1,112,896 6,4 14,896
1,073,205 1,1 64,777 6,7 13,94 7
1,122,920 1,218,734 7,024,960
1,174,623 1 ,274,848 7,348,413
1,228,394 1,333,208 7,684,805
1,284,316 1,393,901 8,034,652
1,34 2,475 1,457,023 8,398,493
1,402,960 1,522,669 8,776,888
1,465,865 1,590,941 9,170,419
1,531,286 1,661,944 9,579,690 13
1,599,324 1,735,787 10,005,333
27,2 10,513 29,532,266 170,228,337
22
City Bond Borrowing Capacity Assuming No
SMCRA is Approximately $43 Million*
* This is the City's maximum borrowing capacity, hence no
additional borrowing will be available to the City for the
next 15 or 20 years.
14
23
Additional Option
Sunset the SMCRA May 2020
Initiate a new SMCRA with existing and expanded boundaries
June 2020
Advantage is that it provides a 2020 Base Year, hence initially
less loss of revenue to the City (Approx. $ 109 mill to $72 mill
over 30-years)
Disadvantage is funding of projects must wait for
accumulation of revenues.
Disadvantage is the SMCRA, taking into account the rebates,
would need to wait till about year 10, with $0 expenditures,
to acquire enough revenue for a borrowing equal to today
borrowing amount.
15
24
Additional Option (SUMMARY)
~ The SMCRA generates a total of $113,024,473
of revenue, net of rebate amounts.
~ At around the 10th year, the SMCRA would be
able to borrow approximately $23.8 million
over 3D-years.
16
25
South Miami C ommunity Redev elopment District Revenue S unset Ca lculations
C ity of South Miami's Cost M hmi Dade C ounty's C ost
Exisitin g City County NetSMCRA
SMCRA Boundary & New Tota l SMCRA 25% Rebate on 2S%Rebate on Revnue
Annual TIF Expansion Boundaries at 75%t E xpansion 75% and Revenue its Respective its Respective Amount, Afte r
Year at75% at 7S ulu 75% Year Ex isitino at 75% Ex pansion Year Including County Year Amou nt Amount Rebates
20 19 0 0 $0 20 19 $0 0 $0 20 19 50 2019 0 0 0
2020 54,548 18 ,3 17 $72,865 2020 $59,202 19,880 $79,082 2020 5 151 ,946 2020 18,2 16 19,770 113,960
202 1 111 ,278 37,366 $14 8,644 2021 S 120,772 40,555 5 16 1,327 202 1 5309,97 1 2021 37,161 40,332 232,478
2022 344,426 57.178 540 1,604 2022 $373 ,8 15 62,057 $435,871 2022 $837.476 2022 100,401 108,968 628,107
2023 509,50 1 122 ,932 $632,433 2023 5552,975 133,42 1 $686,396 2023 $1,3 18 ,829 2023 158,108 171,599 989,122
2024 584.429 17 1,966 5756.395 2024 $634.296 186,639 $820,935 2024 $1,577.330 2024 189,099 205,234 1,182,99 7
2025 662,354 170,329 5832,683 2025 $7 18,870 184,863 $903,733 2025 $1,736,41 6 2025 208,171 225,933 1,302,312
2026 743 ,396 195,459 5938,855 2026 5806,827 212,137 5 1,018 ,964 2026 $1,957,8 19 2026 234,714 254,741 1,468,364
2027 827.680 22 1,595 S 1.04 9,274 2027 5898,302 240.502 5 1,138 ,804 2027 $2,188.078 2027 262,319 284,701 1,641,059
2028 9 15 ,335 248,775 $1,164,1 10 2028 5993,436 270,002 $1,263,438 2028 $2 ,427,548 2028 291,027 315,860 1,8 20,6 61
2029 1,006,496 277,043 $1,283 ,539 2029 $1.092,376 300,682 $1,393 ,058 2029 $2 ,676,596 2029 320,885 348,264 2,007,447
2030 1,101.303 306.442 $1.407,745 2030 5 1,195,273 332,589 5 1,527,862 203 0 $2,935 .6 07 2030 351,936 381,965 2,201,705
203 1 1,199,903 337,0 16 S I,536.9 19 203 1 5 1,302,286 365,772 5 1,668 ,058 203 1 53 ,204,977 2031 384,230 4 17,014 2,403,733
2032 1,302,447 368,8 14 $1,67 1,26 1 2032 5 1,4 13,579 400,283 5 1,8 13,862 2032 53,485,123 2032 417,815 453,466 2,613,842
2033 1,409,093 401 ,883 5 1,810,976 2033 $1,529,325 436,174 $1,965,498 2033 $3 ,776,474 2033 452,744 491,3 75 2,832,356
2034 1,520,004 436,275 S I,956,2 80 2034 5 1,649,700 473 ,5 00 52,123 ,200 2034 $4079,480 2034 489,070 530,800 3,059,610
2035 1,635.352 472.043 $2.107 ,3 95 2035 5 1.774.890 5 12,320 52,287.2 10 2035 $4,394.605 2035 526,849 57 1,803 3,295,954
2036 1,755 ,3 14 509,24 1 S2,264,556 2036 S I ,905,088 552,693 $2,457,78 0 2036 $4722336 2036 566,139 614,445 3,541,752
2037 1,880,075 547,928 S2 ,428 ,003 2037 $2,040,493 594,680 $2,635,173 2037 $5063,176 2037 607,001 658,793 3,797,382
2038 2,009.825 588.162 $2,597,987 2038 52,18 1,3 15 638,347 52,8 19.662 2038 $5,4 17,650 2038 649,497 704,916 4,063,237
2039 2,144 ,766 630,005 $2,774 ,772 2039 $2.327,770 683 ,761 53 ,0 11 ,530 2039 55,786,302 2039 693,693 752,883 4,339,727
~ 2,285 , I 05 673,522 $2,958,627
~ 2,431 ,057 7 18,780 $3.149837
2040 52.480,083 730,99 1 53,2 11 ,074 2040 $6,169,70 1
204 1 S2 ,638,488 780, II 0 $3 ,4 18,598 204 1 $6,568435
2040 739,65 7 802,768 4,627,275
2041 78 7,4 59 854,650 4,926,326
~ 2,582,847 765 ,848 $3 ,348,695 2042 $2,803,230 83 1,194 $3 ,634 ,424 2042 $6,983 ,11 9 2042 837,174 908,606 5,237,339
lQ£l 2,740.708 8 14 ,799 $3 .555.507 2043 $2.974,561 884,322 S3 ,858.883 2043 57,4 14.390 2043 888,877 964,72 1 5,560,793
~ 2,904 ,885 865,708 $3,770,592 2044 $3 ,152,746 939,575 54 ,092,320 2044 $7,862,9 12 2044 942,648 1,023,080 5,897,184
~ 3,075 ,628 9 18,653 53,994 ,280 2045 $3 ,338,058 997,037 $4 ,335,095 2045 $8,329,375 2045 998,570 1,083,774 6,247,031
~ 3,253.20 I 973.7 16 54.226.9 16 2046 53,530,782 1,056,798 $4 ,587.580 2046 $8,8 14.497 2046 1,056,729 1,146,895 6,610,873
~ 3,437,877 1,030,98 1 54,468,858
~ 3,629,939 1,090,537 $4,720,476
~ 3,829,685 1,152,475 $4,982,160
1047 $3 ,73 1,1 15 1,11 8,950 $4 ,850,165 2047 $9,3 19,023
2048 53 ,939,666 1,183 ,588 55 ,123 ,254 2048 $9,843 ,730
2049 $4 ,156,455 1,250,811 55 ,407,266 2049 $10,389,426
2047 1,117,2 14 1,2 12,54 1 6,989,267
2048 1,180,119 1,280,813 7,382,798
2049 1,245,54 0 1,351,8 16 7,792,070 17
2050 4,037,420 1,2 16,89 1 $5,254,3 11 2050 $4,38 1,9 15 1.320,723 $5 ,702,638 2050 $ I 0,956,950 2050 1,313,578 1,425,660 8,217,712
55,925.877 16,3 40.678 $72,266,556 -$60.697,785 17.734 ,9)6578.432,74 1 5 150,699.297 18,066,639 19,608,185 113,0 24,473
26